"The one Falcon 9 that became a UFO" Update coming soon
Falcon 9 Flight 46 - CRS-13payload mass: Dragon C108(CRS-6) + 2,205 kilograms to ISS including Space Debris Sensor, TSIS, orbit: LEO [187]delivered orbit: 204 x 348 x 51.64° [192]core number: B1035.2 - RTLS - Pad SLC-40 F) 2017-12-06, Successful static fire (7 seconds)[188] D) 2017-12-12, Mission delay to allow for additional time for pre-launch ground systems checks [190] D) 2017-12-13, Mission delay due to detection of particles in 2nd stage fuel system [191] L) 2017-12-15, Successful launch (the one with the pinstripes [first unwashed reused core, also first from rebuilt SLC-40])[189] BR) 2017-12-15, Successful landing at LZ1[189]Falcon 9 Flight 47 - Iridium NEXT-4payload mass: 9,600 kilograms (10 x 860kg + 1000kg dispenser) [99] orbit: 780 km x 780 km, 86.4° [104]delivered orbit: 609 x 626 km x 86.7° [196]core number: B1036.2 - Expendable - Pad SLC-4E F) 2017-12-18, Successful static fire [194] L) 2017-12-22, Successful launch (the one that became a nuclear alien UFO from North Korea) [193] BX) 2017-12-22, Booster expended due to it being an old version [195]Falcon 9 Flight 48 - Northrop Grumman Zumapayload mass: classified, orbit: classifieddelivered orbit: ?? x ?? km x ~50° (classified) [201]core number: 1043 - RTLS - Pad SLC-40 F) 2017-11-11, Successful static fire [198] D) 2017-11-15, Mission delay in order to conduct additional mission assurance work [199] D) 2017-11-16, Mission delay in order to take a closer look at data from recent fairing testing for another customer [200] D) 2018-01-04, Mission delay due to upper level winds. Did some propellant loading tests in the unique cold weather situation [202] L) 2018-01-08, Successful launch (the one where Falcon 9 did everything correctly [but the payload is rumored to be lost]) [197] BR) 2018-01-08, Successful landing at LZ1 [197]
Quote BX) 2017-12-22, Booster expended due to it being an old version [195]
BX) 2017-12-22, Booster expended due to it being an old version [195]
Quote from: cartman on 01/10/2018 05:11 pmQuote BX) 2017-12-22, Booster expended due to it being an old version [195]Nice touch distinguishing from a failed landing attempt.
Suggestion for an edit to the ZUMA listing: L) 2018-01-08, Successful launch (the one where Falcon 9 did everything correctly [but the payload is rumored to be lost]) [197]Walks the line between SpaceX succeeding in their responsibilities with a rumored launch mission failure (i.e. delivery to orbit failed). As this is the SpaceX Launch Log, IMO a green primary listing is warranted. But with a single color listing, a casual/quick scan of the log will likely miss the true result (assuming the satellite did actually get splashed).
Cool pics. Why is the hot fire sometimes elevated a day from the baseline. What is that day signifying?
Quote from: Lar on 01/14/2018 09:56 pmCool pics. Why is the hot fire sometimes elevated a day from the baseline. What is that day signifying?Sorry, forgot to put it in legend:The scale starts with the first static fire attempt. And the blue dots - they show the SUCCESSFUL static fire. Therefore, if blue dot sits on zero line - it means the first static fire attempt was a success.If blue dot is above zero line - it was not a first take.Thank you for note, I'll update legend.
Falcon 9 flight 10 - OG2 Mission 1 S) 2014-05-08, Umbilical connections between the pad and the rocket [15] S) 2014-05-09, Helium leak at Composite Overwrap Pressure Vessels (COPV) [16] D) 2014-05-10 - 2014-06-20, Delay due to helium leak, range, re-test on the satellites [16,17] F) 2014-06-13, Successful static fire [18] C) 2014-06-20, Pressure decrease in 2nd stage [19] W) 2014-06-21, Weather (the one without the webcast) [19] C) 2014-06-22, 1st stage TVC actuator [19] D) 2014-06-22 - 2015-07-14, Delay due to TVC actuator, range maintenance [19] F) 2014-07-11, 2nd Successful static fire [19] C) 2014-07-14, Ground Support Equipment (GSE) [20] L) 2014-07-14, Successful launch [20] BL) 2014-07-14, Third water landing attempt, first "soft" water landing
SPACEX: No rocket damage link to Razaksat delayBy Rob Coppinger on April 22, 2009 12:19 AMSpace Exploration Technologies has responded to Hyperbola's enquiry about the last minute announcement of the delay to the company's first commercial launch with its Falcon 1 rocket, scheduled for 20 April, and denied there is any damage to the rocket:We are re-evaluating predicted launch vehicle environments on the satellite to ensure all systems are ready to support a successful launch. As for this being a "late" find, flushing out this type of potential issue is exactly why we do pre-launch tests and checkouts. Contrary to other reports, there is no damage to the launch vehicle (all prelaunch checks were accomplished successfully, including the successful static test fire of the vehicle last Wednesday). We are evaluating the extent of the delay, and I will let you know as soon as we have a new date for both RazakSAT and Falcon 9.
...One issue though, Orbcomm-1 (flight 10) had 2 successful static fires done. The first was about a month after the opening attempt. And the second was about a month later after a few aborted launch attempts and a delay. It looks like you're only listing the second attempt. Also, as that one is such an outlier (max. campaign duration) it should be labelled as those points will generally be of high interest and labeling will save viewers some extra searching.
"The one that survived splashdown""The one that didn't want to sink""The one that didn't need a barge droneship"